RULING BY THE HON MADAM SPEAKER ON A POINT OF ORDER RAISED BY HON B M MUNDUBILE, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION, AGAINST HON DR S MUSOKOTWANE, MINISTER OF FINANCE AND NATIONAL PLANNING, FOR MISLEADING THE HOUSE AND THE NATION ON THE ROLE OF THE CONSORTIUM IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED LUSAKA/NDOLA DUAL CARRIAGEWAY 
_________________________________________________________
Hon Members will recall that on Thursday, 16th March, 2023, when the House was considering the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address on National Values and Principles, and Hon Dr S Musokotwane, Minister of Finance and National Planning, was debating, Hon B M Mundubile, Leader of the Opposition, raised a Point of Order against Hon Dr S Musokotwane, MP.  At the time, Hon Dr S Musokotwane, MP, was questioning the sentiments by some members of the public that the National Pension Scheme Authority (NAPSA) should not fund the consortium constructing the Lusaka/Ndola Dual Carriageway.

The Point of Order was premised on Standing Order 65 of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders, 2021, which requires Members to ensure that the information they bring to the House is factual and verifiable. In his Point of Order, Hon B M Mundubile, MP, stated that the public was concerned that, previously, NAPSA had funded the construction of some roads through the National Road Fund Agency (NRFA).  He, therefore, asked whether Hon Dr S Musokotwane, MP, was in order to insist that what he was doing was right when NAPSA could fund the construction of the Lusaka/Ndola Dual Carriageway through NRFA, instead of the consortium. 

In his immediate response, the Hon Mr Second Deputy Speaker reserved his ruling in order to study the matter and render a measured ruling. I have studied the matter, and will now render my ruling.

I wish to begin by reminding Hon Members of the purpose of a Point of Order. Standing Order 131 (1) of the National Assembly of Zambia Standing Orders 2021 is instructive in this regard. It provides as follows:

“131. (1) A member who is of the opinion that the rules of procedure have been breached by another member may raise a Point of Order.”

Hon Members, from the foregoing provision it is clear that a Point of Order is used to bring to the attention of the House a breach of procedure or the rules of the House.

Hon Members, a scrutiny of Hon B M Mundubile, MP’s, Point of Order revealed that he used it to present a different position from the Hon Minister regarding the financing of the Lusaka/Ndola Dual Carriageway by NAPSA. While he asserted that the hon Minister was misleading the House, his assertion was not that the hon Minister had presented a different position to the House earlier or the Hon Minister’s position was contrary to the Government’s position. Rather, his assertion was that the Hon Minister’s position was different from that of the public, which was for NAPSA to fund the road directly through NRFA. In other words, he was expressing his and the public’s view regarding the role NAPSA should play in financing the Lusaka/Ndola Dual Carriageway. 

As earlier stated, a Point of Order is intended to raise a procedural breach. It, therefore, cannot be used to raise a contrary or divergent position on a matter. Instead, a member who has a contrary view on an issue should indicate to debate. In view of the foregoing, the Point of Order is not admissible.

Hon Members, I have observed a growing tendency by Hon Members, to use Points of Order to debate. That is an abuse of a Point of Order.  There are various avenues available to Hon Members to express their opinions on matters. These include motions and questions. Therefore, going forward, I will not entertain any attempt to debate through a Point of Order. 

I Thank You.